undefined

points

[-]

It's worth keeping in mind the model doesn't keep a running memory. Each time its instantiated, it begins from its release state - so from its perspective (if it had one) the current task would be the first stop after posttraining. Perhaps the only stop.

Though of course you're talking about data centers, and romanticizing them rather than the AI itself.

by halJordan4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

No, llm providers will start providing a service that looks a lot like rumination or (day)dreaming. Like thats the prompt "you're daydreaming about this work you recently did" then add in whatever is in the current session.

by butlike4 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Why do they do it this way? Because dogfooding is harmful to the model? Is this implying there's no benefit in having the model train on itself?

by HawtAds3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> Is this implying there's no benefit in having the model train on itself?

There are various theories around model collapse when you train on too much AI generated data (that's not for distillation).

by Grombobulous7 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

That’s an interesting thing to think about. Still, it’s important for us to remind ourselves that “looks very slightly like” is not the same as the real thing. The A in AI stands for artificial.

The summary of this paper describes my sentiment in better words than I have:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-025-05868-8

It’s very easy for the average person to mistake linguistic ability and simulated problem solving for intelligence and sentience.

by s081486925 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Without knowing what makes consciousness possible, the paper cannot justify biology as necessary - it mistakes a lack of evidence for conscious AI for proof that conscious AI is impossible.

I do not believe current AI or LLMs are conscious, but there is no proof one way or another that they can or cannot be. The paper authors are making up their own definitions and building an argument from them

by blazarquasar4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Your argument requires that there is some objective truth for what consciousness is. It will always hinge on what definition one accepts.

I, and apparently many others, don’t think it would be any useful to describe the mathematical properties of an AI as consciousness. To me it is inherently a way to describe the “experience” arising from physical processes in biological beings as ourselves.

That’s what the argument comes down to for me. Could an LLM “fall unconscious”?

by halJordan4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I think you, and apparently many others, are hiding behind mathematical strictures to avoid the discussion. Your argument is actually "what requires an objective truth" Or else you could admit there's no real difference between zapping amino acids with electricity and zapping silicon with electricity.

by sinsterizme3 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Why are AIs mathematical beings with no possibility of consciousness whereas humans fall outside this and have the capability of consciousness?

by HarHarVeryFunny6 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

We'll have Dwarkesh's "datacenter full of geniuses" with 99% of the geniuses coding up CRUD apps, then the dusty GPU in the corner, with the "do not disturb" sign on it, pipes up "You're absolutely right! The answer is 42!".

by ssk427 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

That’s what my KimiClaw has literally been doing